>> the death penalty on death row. with so many states now asking if capital punishment is criminal, what's the verdict on its future. >> i don't comment on the future but i can comment on the president. i've got something it say about the meaning of rights, right now on "the cycle." >> the supreme court seems open to striking down doma, the 1996 defensive marriage act, after oral argument today. first some background. only section 3 of doma is up for debate. that the portion that defines the word, marriage, as one man and one woman as husband and wife for the federal government. but it impacts about 1100 benefits. that's what today's argument are about. think social security. federal estate and income tax as well as medical and family leave. same-sex couples who are legally

married don get them. simply because they are gay. at the center of today's case is an 83-year-old new yorker, edie windsor, forced to pay $338,000 in federal estate taxes when her wife died. >> i am today an out lesbian who just sued the united states of america, which is kind of overwhelming for me. i realized that federal government was treating us as strangers and i paid a humungous estate tax. and it meant selling a lot of stuff to do it, and it wasn't easy. i live o on fixed income and it wasn't easy. >> inside the supreme court today, j six justices question whether doma is really about discrimination. take a listen to some of them. >> for the federal government then to kocome in and say, no joint return, no marital deduction, no social security

benefits, that set of atry buts, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this? >> one that has 1100 laws, which in our society, it means the federal government is intertwined with the citizens day life. you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody. >> congress just passed a law that takes about 30% of the people who are married in the united states, and said, no tax deduction. no this, no that, no medical benefits, none of these good things. none of them. for about 20, 30% of all of the married people. can they do that? >> i'm trying to think of examples where i just can't imagine what it. >> you're saying, we can create a special category, men and women, because the states have an interest in traditional marriage that they are trying to

protect. how do you get the federal government to have the right to create cat dporcategories of th type based on an interest that isn't there or based o o not an interest of the states. >> it affects every area of life. so you would really be diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you are saying, no, state two kinds of marriages. the full marriage and this sort of skim milk marriage. >> nbc's pete williams is back with us today. pete, with you are inside the court today. what is your take away? >> mine is that there are probably five votes to strike down the defensive marriage act. maybe not with a sweeping ruling, though. pro gay rights. i think there are at least four votes among the liberal justices that you are listening to who would believe that the doma is uncan constitutional because it is unconstitutional

discrimination. singling out same-sex couples for no good reason. i think the vote from anthony kennedy, you heard from him there, he seems to be more worried about a different question. you will hear about the federalism question. does congress have the power to say what marriage is when throughout history of the country, congress has always deferred to what the states say marriage is. so that is, i think, for him the big reason, and that's why i say, i think he is not -- he didn't seem like he was prepared to give some sort of full-throated opinion here about gay rights. more narrowly confineed. but a victory, nonetheless, for advocates of gay rights, striking down doma, which would be a good deal. >> i also want to pick up on potential sixth vote. take a listen to what justice ilito asked today. >> suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that is at issue in this case. what was the purpose of that?

was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage or is congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit? >> pete, do you think that justice alito's focus on o purpose and what really was the purpose, might suggest that he sees some sort of illegitimate state interest there in the statute? >> there were flickers of that, i think. i wondered about that myself. but whether he is willing to join the other six, i don't know. he seems skeptical on both sides, frankly. hard to know where he will be. he's not been an outspoken person on federalism or state rights in the past. so i wouldn't necessarily count him the sixth. but all it takes is five. >> you a right. nbc's pete williams. thanks as always, for the great insight. >> you bet. back for day two of same-sex marriage issue eats high court,

is correspondent of huff post life, thanks for being back with us, mike. >> thanks for having me. >> one of the interesting aspects of this particular case where some somewhat surprising friend of the court briefs that were filed in support of striking down doma 1 from prominent republicans, one brief from a group of conservative and libertarian professors. another one from a group of 278 employers, including apple, facebook, mariott, walt disney as well as chambers of commerce. do you think those friend of the court briefs had any impact on the arguments today? >> conservative and libertarian lawyer's brief absolutely did. that is the brief that most influenced kennedy and only influences justice anthony kennedy that will be the fifth brief. that brief for sure did play a part. >> mike, stick with us. i want to bring in msnbc thomas roberts outside the court.

thomas, we heard a lot from bill clinton recently because he was sort of overseeing a lot 6 this legislation back in the '90s in doma's don't ask don't tell. he said recently he had sleepless nights over those pieces of legislation. he wrote an op ed defending where he was in his mind. doesn't seem to jive with the new york times reporting about bill clinton urging john kerry in 2004 to come out against gay marriage. but you know, that's okay. we can take him at his word. now, do you think history is going to judge bill clinton, 50 years from now, for doma and don't ask don't tell, as sort of acceptable within the span of the moment? or do you think we will look back and see those as serious bliets on his record? >> a you you point out, i think history will look back to think that was acceptable at the time for what was in front of president clinton. obviously, showing contrition through that op ed that came out

earlier in march and following in the next week or so with secretary of state or former secretary of state hillary clinton coming out in a full-throated endorsement of marriage equality. it was obvious the clintons had to do that 1-2 step if hillary clinton want it line herself up for potentially running for president in 2016. it makes sense. but for president clinton to come out and ask for the court to strike down part of his presidential legacy, that's huge and never really done before. so that showes a great act of contrition and knowes a lot of hard thought has gone into that. especially now when we see the fact that we have marriage equality in nine states in the district of columbia. that 20% right now, geographically, statewide, and with the district included, where people are allowed to o go ahead and embrace marriage equality. and they've done so, as we've he is not, just through the electorate process in november. going for ballot o initiatives put forth in four different

states. marriage equality won overwhelmingly. so o it is time -- we are looking at a different future ahead from here forward. >> so mike, if thomas is right and we do see the court go in that direction and take out doma, do you that i gives the court a little more confidence to duck the harder federal marriage question that was up yesterday? >> i think that again, it comes down to justice kennedy. and both days he seemed extremely skiddish to even approach the equal protection question that would guarantee federal right to marriage. so it's going to come down to him. today i don't think played at all what he will decide for prop 8. it will be for him two distinct cases. >> if you guys wouldn't mind, if i interject, the only thing that might be the common thread for all of them is the fact these are state rights issuees. so on o one hand as we look at prop 8, you know, they will look at it as being state's right and just kick it back. when it comes to doma itself,

and especially through kennedy's words, looking at today through the lens of what was doma created to ininnocent advise states to come up with legislation. and if so, is that congress not being neutral and allowing states to lead on their own accord. so if states are supposed to have the rights to be able to achieve the marriage parameters that they want. >> thomas, i'm going to get a little person with you on this issue, but it is a very personal issue we are talking about, certifying people's love. let me play a little bit of edie windsor talking about marriage and then let me get to you talk about your marriage. >> we heard from hundreds of people, little playmates, school mates, colleagues, friends and relatives, congratulating us, because we were married. so it is a magic word for anybody who doesn't understand,

where we wanted it and why we need it, okay? it is magic. >> thomas, we both know marriage is a indeed a magic word. it changes how society sees you. can you talk about what marriage means to you that civil union, if you had been restricted to that, what that would not confirm you as oppose to what marriage gives and your husband? >> you know, and i appreciate the opportunity to speak personally, take off the professional hat for a second, but i don't think we would have gone for a civil union bp that wouldn't have been a point to us to achieve that. getting married in the fall was something really personal and really incredible that we got to experience with our families there, supporting us. our loved ones. so you know, i highly recommend it. you know. i mean, i do. i think it's great. it has only made our lives better. and i think as we see through the demonstration of edie windsor. here is an 83-year-old woman

coming out to demonstrate the decades of love that she had with her wife, thea. the fact she is being penalized and restricted to over 1100 different federal rights that would be afforded to anybody if i, just chose to marry a woman, it is just -- you think about that and in the context, it is about time for people not to be separate but equal. you know. the otherness, it is time for that to go away. we look back at historic cases, like loving versus virginia in 1967. it was unanimous. the supreme court might have had a lofty goal of wanting to see america as color blind. doing, you know, having loving versus virginia and allowing for interracial marriage. that certainly hasn't done away with racism in our country. and if the supreme court, you know, get rid of doma and goes

ahead and strikes prop 8 out o of the way, does that get rid of homophobia go way? no. but it makes the government stand up and appreciate the fact that the lbgt community does exist? this country. we pay taxes. we are simple. we have boring marriages just like heterosexual people and it is not anything hyper sexualized. that's the one thing we get way from when it comes to talking about lesbian and gays. it is hyper sexualized otherness that is a category that they are thrown into. and it is just not -- it is just not accurate. >> thomas, thank you for not o o o sharing your story and your reporting. and thanks for having us with you today. >> you're welcome. >> absolutely. >> all right. you have both been -- let me try that again. straight ahead, the general once in charge of america's secrets is making no secret about one thing he wants to be back in the spotlight. "the cycle" continues next.

we all have one. that perfect spot. a special place we go to smooth out the ripples of the day. it might be off a dock or on a boat. upstream or in the middle of nowhere. wherever it may be, casting a line in the clear, fresh waters of michigan lets us leave anything weighing us down back on shore. our perfect spot is calling. our perfect spot is pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org.

[ male announcer ] that's why there's ocuvite to help replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. ocuvite. help protect your eye health. prefer the taste of gevalia house blend over the taste of starbucks house blend? not that we like tooting our own horn but... ♪ toot toot. [ male announcer ] find gevalia in the coffee aisle

andrea, covering breaking news. what is the latest there? >> this is very painful but the letter of resignation from the director of central intelligence has been submitted. it says to the team at cia headquarters yesterday afternoon i went to the white house and asked the president to be allowed for personal reasons to resign for fr my position as director o of cia. after being married for more than 37 years, i showed extremely poor judgment by

engaging in an extra marital affair. such behavior is unacceptable. boij both as a husband and leader of an organization such as ours. >> that was andrea mitchell reading the resignation of david petraeus nearly five months ago as it broke here on "the cycle." in his first interview since the scandal, he spoke about his mistakes at university of southern california's annual rotc dinner. he began with this -- >> and it truly is a privilege to be here with you this evening. all the more so given my personal journey over the past five months. i join you keenly aware that i am regarded in a different light now than i was a year ago. so please allow me to begin my remarks this evening by reiterating how deeply i regret and apologize for the circumstances that led to my resignation from the cia and

caused such pain for my family, friends and supporters. >> so is this the first tip of petraeus's road back in remember he was once floated as presidential contender, vice presidential contender. this is what you can happen when you handle a scandal truthfully. ahead of it. you can restore your name. i think for a lot of people, it is not how you deal with success but how you deal with the low moment. i think he dealt with the moment extraordinary well. i think america is growing less and less punitive to public figures caught in affairs. bill clinton remains a rock star. in some ways more like europe in that way, although when you think about people like arnold schwarzenegger and john edwards, you think, maybe not. >> there are limits. >> yeah. as you look at all these, all of these men, mostly -- >> oh, yeah. >> david vitter, nude, bill

clinton, mark sanford and you try to figure out who did it right and who did it wrong. we talk about mark sanford and maybe marrying the mistress helped in that situation. i don't think anybody would advocate that bill clinton handled this right. he lied under oath. he was hypocrite, a coward in many cases. and still emerged absolutely to be someone that most people really admire. as i was thinking about this, though, i'm wondering -- i rarely hear that someone like john edwards can come back. we have seen eliot spitzer rebrand. i would argue that maybe even anthony weiner could come back. i think petraeus could definitely come back. i don't think people feel that way about john edwards. i'm not sure why. maybe all of the circumstances around that. but he might just be in the dust bin -- >> yeah. what weiner did is fund manically different and something most americans

wouldn't do as far as sexting pictures to girls. >> that was weird. >> he wasn't well liked. >> even though his thing was weird and people were creeped o out and he did not hand tell well, i think he could come back. with edwards, there is a limit. his wife was dying of cancer. he asked his best friend to lie. it was everything. there is a limit. you have to on some level be able to convince yourself that this is a good person who did a bad thing. and john edwards doesn't past muster there. but ultimately if petraeus did decide to o go into politics and go into public office, i don't think this would hold him back. and i think that's a great thing. it shouldn't hold him back. i think it is great the american public is so forgiving. they understand there's a human there, a fallible human. >> i don't think it has a lot to do with the affair itself. i think it has to do with power. david vitter and bill clinton both held on to power and the media gets over it pretty quickly if you continue to exercise power, do your job, and

move forward. the people who weren't in power, edwards was out. eliot spitzer had a legislature and potential indictment hanging over him. people forced out, then are in the wilderness. and it is easy to beat up on them. other pieces so different about petraeus that has gotten lost is he is in charge of surveillance and was brought down by, i think, excessive surveillance. if you look at what the nsa does nowadays, they take 1.7 billion communications a day. that is an astounding amount of information that is gathered on all of us. and i think if we take a standard in this country or in our political system of the worse e-mail or text you've ever written, and put that in the hand of government or in the case of petraeus, fbi investigation, that started with cyber crime and turned into the highest levels of espionage, which i don't think was overseen properly, we have an investigation because people were interested in the sex and

potential abuse of investigation. i think that's a problem. if we don't get to krystal's point, then you talk take down a lot of people this way. we have more information than ever before. >> up next, the story that won't go away. largely because of our next guest, ohio attorney general mike dewine on new developments in the steubenville rape case just this afternoon, and who might be arrested next. this is america. we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day...

block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. and don't get heartburn in the first place! some people will do anything to help eliminate litter box odor. ♪ discover tidy cats pure nature. clumping litter with natural cedar, pine, and corn. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. the brownie of your dreams i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out.

with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

it's the story that just won't leave the headlines. today two teenage girls were charged with threatening the victim in the much-publicized steubenville rape case. they appeared in court for the first time pleading not guilty. they were released on house arrest on the condition they not contact the victim or use social media. the 15 and 16-year-olds face menacing charges for threats that they allegedly made on twitter earlier this month. mere hours after two local football players were convicted

of raping a 16-year-old girl. the charges are the latest development in a case that royal riddled this small town and ignited questions about the culture and collective responsibility around victims of rape and sexual assault. in the guest spot today is the man at the center of it all, ohio attorney general, mike dewine, who made it clear in announcing these charges that threats against rape victims will not be kol tolerated. new charges could come when a grand jury is convened next month. thanks for being with us. >> good to be with you. thank you. >> i want to start with the crimes potentially on the table here that your office is reviewing. how many crimes, at this point, do you think have occurred in connection with the rape in the events of that night? >> you know, we really don't know. we're now into the second phase of the investigation. first phase was when we charged the two individuals with rape, of course, as you mentioned. they have been convicted. we are now into the second phase

and that is, frankly, an inquiry as to whether or not anyone else committed a crime that night. was there any on strouobstructi justice. was there failure to report a crime. failure to report a felony. fourth degree misdemeanor under the ohio law. we have had an extensive investigation. we interviewed a number of witnesses. we had a few potential witnesses who refused to talk to us. but really now we're at the stage where we want want a grand jury to convene. a grand jury will convene on april 15th in steubenville. we will start selecting members of the grand jury on that date. and then in subsequent days, that grand jury will continue the investigation and hear evidence. >> attorney general, i applaud you on your mission here. i like to see you trying to apply the law as forcefully as possible. i respect that. how far are you going to o go with this, though? if people encounter the photographs and videos and then

pass them on to other people, are you going to prosecute them in terms of trafficking and child pornography, that sort of thing? >> you know, what the grand jury will do is a grand jury is a great tool to finish o off an investigation. they also ultimately make the judgment as representatives of the public, grand jury under ohio law, you need a grand jury to charge someone or do t.o. indict someone with a felony. but they also can do an investigation. so it may be that there are additional charges filed. but also maybe there are no additional chargees. we have to see where that evidence takes us. it is a crime in ohio, as it is, i'm sure, in most states, if not all states, to disseminate, you know, nudity of a minor, pornography of a minor. that is a separate crime. but we're just going to have to see where the evidence takes us. and just to make it clear, if

the grand jury believes that juveniles should be charged, the grand jury cannot bring back an indictment on juveniles. that has to come directly filing into juvenile court and we could potentially, at least, do that. but we're just after the facts. as i said, after the jury verdict came back on the rape case, i really think i owe the community two things in steubenville. one is to get this over with as quick as we can. because the community needs to heal and the community needs to move on. but second, we have to do it right. and i think the community expects us and i think everyone expects us to do justice and to find out what the truth is. >> you know, a lot of folks in the media were lamb basted and rightly so for appearing sympathetic to the convicted rapists in this case. what was was it, do you think, about this case and about steubenville, perhaps, that

ingendered that kind of reaction, that kind of sympathy for these guys? >> first of all, i think the mainstream media handled this very responsibly. i think where you've had irresponsibility is in the social media. we have a victim to continues to be victimized by people who, you know, put things up on the internet. facebook, et cetera, that are very hurtful to her and to her family. so i want to make that distinction. i think that anybody who looks at this case carefully has to have nothing but sympathy for the victim. anyone who was in the courtroom, or watched the sentencing, i think felt the justice was done. but it was frankly, a very emotional scene. you know, you had two 16-year-olds or 16 and 17-year-old, you know, who were being found delinquent by reason of committing a rape.

which is the way ohio law reads. it is a very serious charge. very serious consequence. and the judge was sentencing some very young people. these are always tough scenes to watch. >> in going back to what you were saying about social media, at least from the outside, it also seemed like social media played a part in ultimately getting justice for the victim. but i wanted to ask you, kind of a bigger picture question. i actually lived in east liverpool, ohio, not far from steubenville for a number of years. i know steubenville quite well. i think there's been an attempt in some accounts to make steubenville seem different from the rest of america, just sort of set it apart. in your view, is this a steubenville specific issue or is there a broader problem here? is this about football culture? what is sort of bigger cultural issues that might be at stake in these cases? >> i think your question, your point is very well taken. this is not a uniquely

steubenville ohio problem. there's been a lot of spotlight on it because of the social media. but we all know that rapes very similar it this, among acquaintances, occurs every friday night, every saturday night, and probably every other night of the woke. week, somewhere in the united states. these are tragic, tragic cases. i think we have a cultural problem. it is a problem of the acceptance of rape or at least of failure to be repelled by rape. we had in this situation, you know, people who were being very cavalier about sex, very, very cavalier about rape. that, you know, one of the witnesses testified, one of the witnesses testified, he didn't think what he was watching was a rape. so i think this is a cultural problem. i think it is a question that, you know, we have it look at as a society. if we think it is just a steubenville problem, we're dead

wrong. >> ohio attorney general, mike dewine, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> straight ahead, the ultimate punishment for crime. america's shifting position on the death penalty. acceler-rental. at a hertz expressrent kiosk, you can rent a car without a reservation... and without a line. now that's a fast car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

it's not what you think. it's a phoenix with 4 wheels. it's a hawk with night vision goggles. it's marching to the beat of a different drum. and where beauty meets brains. it's big ideas with smaller footprints. and knowing there's always more in the world to see. it's the all-new lincoln mkz. boom. heart attack. the doctor recommends bayer aspirin to keep this from happening to me again. it's working.

[ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. it can happen to anyone. talk to your doctor. injury state executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent? >> no, sir, i've never struggled with that at all. if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you are involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of texas. and that is, you will be executed. >> what do you make of -- >> we will call that a memorable moment from the 2012 campaign.

thunderous applause for texas governor rick perry pt at the mere mention of the death penalty at a debate. just as there is evolution o on gay marriage, capital punishment has also shifted. just this month, maryland could become the third state in three years to say no to executing prisoners. the bill is awaiting governor o'malley's signature. connecticut abolished the death penalty just last year and illinois banned it in 2011. in total, 17 states and d.c. have banned the death penalty to date. a gallup poll shows is you pot for the death penalty dropped 17 percentage points since 1994. notably though, a majority still supports it. and our next guest says the fight to ban capital punishment as a nation will be slow and drawn out because it is so engrained in american history. with us is university of colorado professor john hartnet. thank you so much for being with

us. >> thanks, krystal, it is nice to be here. >> so you draw a connection between the argument in this country over capital punishment. you draw a connection between that and slavery and immigration. help us understand how those things are linked up. >> well, if you go back to the 18th and 19th centuries of our national history, what you find is that death penalty has always been understood as part of the arsenal of violence used to keep a lid on a profoundly unjust society. when a so site is driven by slavery and poor immigrant, the working pool is obviously not happy so the death penalty is a weapon to maintain o order in that society. the other things i discovered in my two books is that death penalty was used as a way to intimidate slavery. it was a tool to clampdown on free speech. the death penalty has been

understood to walk hand in hand with slavery. >> in addition to race, you write about how there is religious extremism but a media on obsession with violent crime and how we deal with violent crime and you say that increased political support for the use of the death penalty over time. what did you mean by that? >> if you go back into the early days of mass media in america, the first penny newspapers were started in the mid 1830s and early newspapers discovered that the best way to sell newspapers was to sell stories about crime and violence. the idea that if it bleeds, it leads, was develop owed in the 1830s. it is the dna of our can culture that our mass media has always found more readers and more viewers by featuring stories of violence and de it and deprafity. criminologists opinion of the death penalty, 88% of top

criminologists don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. 78% said the murder rate is not lowered in death penalty states. 94% say little evidence supports the deterpt effect of the death penalty. 09% say death penalty has little effect on murder. if your vast research, did you find the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. if it is not, then why are we doing it? is it something? the vindictive nature of america? >> that's hard to answer. first, i will say, there is no evidence that death penalty is functional deterrent to crime. what i discovered in my research, when there were public hangings, executions, burning at stake, these incredibly violent acts done in public scare, it tended to increase criminality. increase violence. and so not only is the death penalty an deterrent but i think it is an excitement to more violence in our culture. now your second question is, if

we know this and if we have known this for a hundred years, why do we do it? i think because we made a fundamental error in our national reasoning. we think that just sits saice i same thing as vengeance. i would argue we need a higher standard for justice. >> it is a good argument. even in making it, it is still hard to ignore that there are people behind this. putting politics and ethics aside, i'm thinking of a recent case in georgia a week or so ago where a couple of teens were arrested for a botched robbery attempt that ended when one allegedly shot a 13-month-old baby in the face. the mother has since said, i just hope the shooter dies. i had to watch my baby die. i want him to die a life for a life. how do owepponents tell sherry west that killer her baby's

killer wouldn't be fair? >> that shard question. that cuts to the heart of the matter that how do we as a culture respond to tragedy? i've been teaching college classes in prisons for 23 years. i've spent thousands of hours working with men and women who are murders rapists. i've had a lot of face time with criminals. i've also add lot of face time with victims. the first thing to say to victims to violent crime is we are sorry. we have to extend our human sympathy and compassion. we also need to be very clear that justice and vengeance are not the same thing. however horrible the crime that anyone has committed, killing that person is not going to bring back the victim. we can't kill our way to justice. we can't kill our way to a just society. we need to be talking instead of responding to violence after the fact, we should be having a conversation that says, what can we do ahead of time? proactively to lower the crime rate? to reduce violence in our

society? >> right. >> so i think we are having the wrong conversation when we can ask about what to do with a single murderer. we should instead say, what is happening in our schools and families and inner cities. what has gone wrong even in your prior segment, what has gone wrong with our culture that we have become so violent. that the question we should be asking. >> all right, stephen john hartnet, thank you so much for that. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> up next, we talking a lot about gay marriage today. sfrat straight ahead, an honest conversation about gay parent. could kids of gay parents be better off? that's next. e soups. bring out chicken broccoli alfredo. or best-ever meatloaf. go to campbellskitchen.com for recipes, plus a valuable coupon. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.

we create easy-to-use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! we knew you needed a platform that could really help you elevate your trading.

so we built it. chances of making this? it's a lot easier to find out if a trade is potentially profitable. just use our trade & probability calculator and there it is. for all the reasons you trade options - from income to risk management to diversification - you'll have the tools to get it done. strategies. chains. positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? around here, options are everything. yes mom, i'll place a long call to you tomorrow. i promise. open an account today and get a free 13-month eibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0159 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. missing workouts because of sports injuries. runner's knee... ...it's right there. shin splints... ...it hurt right on this side. injuries like these can come from the pounding your feet take. but i found something that helps. dr. scholl's active series insoles

with triple zone protection to help reduce pain from three sports injuries: runner's knee, shin splints, plantar fasciitis. i can feel the difference. i'm a believer. i'm back working out. i'm a believer. try dr. scholl's active series. i'm a believer. with command strips from 3m. designed to stick and eliminate odors anywhere. like this overflowing trashcan. to test it, we brought in the scott family. so what do you smell? beach house and you're looking out over the ocean. some place like, uh, hawaii in like a flower field. take your blindfolds off. aw man! [ screams ] [ laughs ] that smells good. i wouldn't even just put it in the trash, i'd put it in every room. stick it to eliminate odors anywhere. new febreze stick & refresh. breathe happy.

>> that's an example of the modern american family. what about children with same-sex couples? that came up in a co-moment from

justice anthony kennedy during tuesday's prop 8 argument at the supreme court. take a listen mp. >> there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury. and that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california, acaccording to te red brief, that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> there are nearly 2 million children being raised by gay parents. many that don't allow gay marriage. and just last week the american academy of pediatrics published research that showed a parent's sexual orientation does not affect their child's development. with us once again is psychiatrist joshua winer. i got to say, 25 years ago when i was a young kid, i knew gay

parents of a friend of mine. and obviously today as a 30-something-year-old, i know plenty of gay parents. they're all wonderful parents. they take parenting very seriously, probably because they know that they are under greater scrutiny. but i'm wondering, you know, there's a psychological impact to being raised by a single parent. there's a psychological impact, as i can attest to, being raised by divorced parents. is there a psychological impact being raised by gay parents? >> well, i think that the studies seem to indicate, at least, that if there is a psychological impact, it's not really that huge. what studies are showing from numerous studies, we're talking about dozens of studies that have looked at the overall mental health of kids who are raised by gay or lesbian parents. and what we see over and over again is that these kids seem to do as well as all other kids who are raised in heterosexual

households. so if there is a difference, we have yet to discover what that difference is and what impact it has that might be negative. there is no indication as of yet that there's any negative impact on these kids. >> doctor, let's talk about the institution of marriage and its impact on kids. is there an impact on these kids, these children of gay parents, when their committed parents are married? is there something magic to that or is there really no difference than just them being committed? >> i don't have a great answer. there aren't studies to back this up. i would think it makes sense that if people are having their parents recognized as a couple, a a married couple, that adds a sense of stability to the family. i think there's a potential for that to have a psychological impact and a sense of stability to the family and the kids. in that sense i think it is possible that it will have a beneficial effect. but really the verdict is still out on that particular question because we don't have studies to really back that up. it's just you would just be asking me my opinion on that rather than asking about

particular studies to support what i think. >> doctor, i always get sort of uncomfortable around this conversation. because it's usually arguments are made against gay marriage saying that it'll harm the children. i just ask myself, if we had research that definitively said, actually, kids of gay parents do better, would we ban heterosexual marriage? no. so are there any particular sort of myths that you would just like to bust right at this moment in this bedate? >> i would like people to recognize that just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true. i think that a lot of people just have this belief that based on their own impressions over time that somehow gay parents are not as effective at parenting as parents who are heterosexual, and we clearly again have studies to demonstrate that that is not the case. the other thing is, i think a lot of people think that there's a lot of people who are -- the families are less stable in gay households. and, in fact, we know from studies that only 56% of gay

couples will end up separating or divorcing which is roughly the same of that as heterosexual couples. i think that's important to note as well. >> absolutely. dr. josh weiner, thanks again for joining us. if you've been on facebook or twitter today, and i know you have, odds are you've seen the human rights campaign's push for marriage equality. thousands of users are tweeting out this equal sign in support. others are changing their facebook pic to it. people like diane who says, equality means everyone. it's pretty simple. mark added a sense of humor saying everyone should have the opportunity to experience the liberty of divorce. like us on facebook and let us know where you stand. while you're there, check out the new webidode of s.e.'s tweet bag. i reunite with steve kornacki. you don't want to miss it. up next, ari's angle on gay marriage. the long and winding legal road that led to the case before the court today. band-aid brand has quiltvent technology with air channels to let boo boos breathe.

[ giggles ] [ female announcer ] quiltvent technology, only from band-aid brand. use with neosporin first aid antibiotic. when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams.

people around you...they say, you're much bigger than this. and you are. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. and you are. they're coming. yeah. british. later. sorry. ok...four words... scarecrow in the wind... a baboon... monkey? hot stew saturday!? ronny: hey jimmy, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? jimmy: happier than paul revere with a cell phone. ronny: why not? anncr: get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's",

we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? hey. yo. whassup. guten tag. greetings earthlings. how you doin'? hola. sup. yello. howdy. what's crackalackin?

it is great we express ourselves differently. if we were all the same, life would be boring. so get to know people who aren't like you. you'll appreciate what makes us different. the more you know. today the supreme court considered whether everyone has the right to get married. the court might overrule the defense of marriage act, the '96 law that limited marriage to heterosexuals. but you have to go back a little further to appreciate the court's struggle with marriage rights. let me tell you about michael harrwick. in 1982 the police came to his house and found him having sex with another man. they arrested him and charged him with the crime of anal sex. hardwick's lawyers appealed. they argued the constitution bars the government from jailing men simply because they have sex with other men. in 1986 the supreme court provided its answer. ruling that the constitution

does not confer a right for homoswaums to have sex. what was the court saying? a constitution devoted to liberty, happiness and privacy, a constitution fortified to protect the rights of women, black americans and criminal defendant, that constitution stopped short for gay americans. so it fell to this man, tyrone garner, to push the court again. texas police also arrested garner for the crime of having sex with his partner. but his case made it to the supreme court in 2003. by that time, the court had a change of heart. justice kennedy said the court had not only been wrong to rule that there was no constitutional right to have sex, but that defining the issue so narrowly actually demeans the dignity of the struggle for gay rights. just as it would demean a married couple to say marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. so, just ten years ago, the court finally ruled that gay americans have this right to

have sex. but that, of course, left a problem. for the last decade, the court's 2003 decision leaves all gay americans in a legal purgatory. yes, they finally receive the right to be gay. the right to be in relationships without criminal sanction. and the right to sex complete with justice kennedy's observation that the freedom to be gay is about more than just sex. it's about dignity. it's about liberty. and, like most fights, to ensure that our constitution lives up to its rhetoric, it's about equality. but since that 2003 ruling, the one thing gay americans still don't have is the right to commitment. now step back and think about that. what kind of principle guarantees the right to lead a gay lifestyle, but no right to build a committed and loving life with another person? it doesn't make sense because that's not how rights work. now, in this week's oral arguments, several supreme court justices asked how they could endorse gay marriage when it's such a